2021
DOI: 10.5194/tc-15-5557-2021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wave dispersion and dissipation in landfast ice: comparison of observations against models

Abstract: Abstract. Observations of wave dissipation and dispersion in sea ice are a necessity for the development and validation of wave–ice interaction models. As the composition of the ice layer can be extremely complex, most models treat the ice layer as a continuum with effective, rather than independently measurable, properties. While this provides opportunities to fit the model to observations, it also obscures our understanding of the wave–ice interactive processes; in particular, it hinders our ability to ident… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
26
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

6
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
(82 reference statements)
0
26
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our inability to accurately capture climatological changes of sea ice in the polar seas has created renewed interest in the dynamic interaction between sea ice and waves. This has resulted in the last few years in a number of studies that investigate the coupling between sea ice and the ocean through theoretical considerations [1][2][3][4][5][6][7], laboratory experiments [8][9][10][11][12], and field experiments [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Despite the advances that these studies bring, there is a growing consensus that further progress in the field can only be achieved through the collection of more observations of waves in ice.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our inability to accurately capture climatological changes of sea ice in the polar seas has created renewed interest in the dynamic interaction between sea ice and waves. This has resulted in the last few years in a number of studies that investigate the coupling between sea ice and the ocean through theoretical considerations [1][2][3][4][5][6][7], laboratory experiments [8][9][10][11][12], and field experiments [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Despite the advances that these studies bring, there is a growing consensus that further progress in the field can only be achieved through the collection of more observations of waves in ice.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A conservative range for Y and σ was chosen to describe the full range of sea ice material properties, with σ∈[0.1, 0.7] MPa and Y∈[0.2, 9] GPa (Karulina et al, 2019;Timco & Weeks, 2010). The range for the attenuation reduction coefficient for broken ice is β∈[0.01, 0.1] (Voermans et al, 2021). Here, we choose β = 0.05 as being the median value.…”
Section: Gridmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both report two distinct phases in attenuation of waves by sea ice: strong attenuation under unbroken ice conditions, and unimpeded propagation under broken ice conditions. Wave attenuation reduces by at least an order of magnitude once the ice is broken (Voermans et al, 2021), hence the waves can propagate further and break more sea ice.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some studies concerned with the dispersion process of waves advancing in ice (or elastic) covers, formulated dispersion relationships were reported to reconstruct the dispersion plot with an effective value of rigidity (or Young Modulus), which is much smaller than what was measured in dry tests (Langleben, 1962;Sakai and Hanai, 2002;Cheng et al, 2019). In some other studies, different values of ice viscosity were seen to give the best fitting for energy damping, which may not agree with reality (Marchenko et al (2021)).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This paper does not use any dataset. All the experimental data were extracted from Figures or Tables of other references listed in Table 1 (Voermans et al (2021); Wadhams et al (1988); Meylan et al (2014); Yiew et al (2019); Sree et al (2018)).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%